2006 (3) TMI 714 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Petition for quashing criminal proceedings under sections 448, 380, 384, 506 IPC due to lack of prior sanction under APGST Act - Whether accused's actions were in discharge of official duty - Interpretation of statutory provisions under APGST Act - Application of section 37 for protection of acts done in good faith.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him for offences under sections 448, 380, 384, 506 IPC. The petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence), argued that without prior sanction under section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during the search of the complainant's premises. The complainant alleged that the accused, along with others, forcibly took away documents and Indira Vikas Patras without acknowledgment or panchanama.

The petitioner contended that his actions were in line with section 28 of the APGST Act, which grants officers powers to order production of accounts and conduct inspections. However, the respondent argued that the seizure of items without acknowledgment or proper procedure cannot be considered part of official duties, citing relevant case law. The court examined the statutory provisions under the APGST Act, particularly sections 27, 28, and 37, to determine the legality of the petitioner's actions.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim and State of Himachal Pradesh v. M.P. Gupta, the court emphasized the need for a reasonable connection between the act and official duty to invoke protection under section 37. The court highlighted that the petitioner failed to provide evidence that his actions were in discharge of official duty, especially regarding the absence of a receipt for seized items. Without such proof, the court concluded that the petitioner's claim of acting in official capacity or dereliction of duty could not be accepted at the initial stage of proceedings.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the criminal petition, stating that without evidence to support the petitioner's defense of acting in official duty, the proceedings could not be quashed prematurely. The judgment underscores the importance of establishing a clear link between actions taken and official duties to seek protection under statutory provisions like section 37 of the APGST Act.